The National tribune., 1887-06-23
GOV. 'OGLESBY'S VIEWS.
lie Would Not Have Vetoed the Dependent PenslO
nill.

Maj.-Gen. Richard J. oglesby, Governor of
Illinois, took occasion 20 express his opinion OF
the veto Of the Dependent Pension Bill in the
course OF a speech made by him at the reception
given Senator Sherman at Springfield, III. He
said:
Mr.. Cleveland has done pretty well in some re-
spccts. ] sorry be vetoed many pension
bills as he did aud II had been Grover ] would
not have vetoed that last pension bill. which veto
met With considerable favor 4 do not, as you all
know, Rs Members Of this Legislature know, he
lieVe much la yetoes anyhow. viii always get
around one II conscicntiously can. When That
body composed Of the Senate and House OF Repre-
sentatlves, in Congress assembled. passes bl IN
lis best Judgment calculated for the welfare oi the
people, knowing the means in the Treasury know
ing ali the sources Of revenue. and knowing The
worthy merits of the soldiers of the Union cause,
.appHuse 1 say under these circumstances Mr..
Cleveland ought 10 have been
SLOW ABOUT THAT VETO.
Afer the was over we passed laws early
land Senator sherman voted for every one OF them
before either CuilOm or went TO tongress) pro-
Hiulng that where there was dependent iather or
mother upon boy whose life was lost IA the war.
that that dependent father or mother or dependent
sister or brother, should receive the pension that
thc dead disabled soldier. IL living would have
received. Now. after waiting "A quarter OF "A GEN.
tury. because fathers and mothers have grown de-
pendent now who were not dependent when that
legislation went into effect; because now They
are old and dependent, and lost boy IN the
war, on whose account they did not ask YOU
nor me nor the National Treasury for a dollar IN
the shape OF pension; because They could get
along when that boy alive when disabled !;
because the considerRte father aud mother, able
TO work every hour through life. did not call upon
the Governmcnt 10 pay them for The loss oi that
boy; because they were not at thai time dependent
on him-is there any good reason. now that the
father and mother are older. why thcy should be
deprived of that pcnsony IL there any reason why
not now give to these old parents the
pension which they might have been drawing tins
last quarter Of century, but not ono dollar OF
which they have drawn? That law WAS passed 10
give the dependent father aud mother pension for
the loss of "A son. not because they were then de-
pendent on him, but because they are now depend
ent Can good, feeling people anywhere say that
any law like that can be far from wrong? suppose
1t did take fiflcen twenty millions out of the
TreasuTy-lei il 70 that way. lflhat boy had been
wounded aud lived these IS years, lac would have
been drawing an annual pension AT the time. hut
, since he was drawing no pension nj all. ~ II not
reasonable that the father aud mother should draw
that pension for his services for The remainder OF
their lives? lApplause Where a man Is depend
cnt wholly upon his personal manual aud physical
labor for support. who was soldier and u not able
now, through no bad habit Of his own the law had
the very words almost in itl and j. ia dccrepu or
disabled state of bodily health, would IL be very
wrong TO give such man pension That lsihe bll
the President vetoed. and do moi think lac ought
10 have done 1t.